It's common practice for larger email providers to treat any large movements of personal training as indicative of the nature of an email(if a bunch of people tag it as spam for themselves, it must be spam for everyone, going into dns-blacklists, etc, even if a few people tag it ham). This is a single-provider example of what people do when they report spam to spamcop, except spamcop's blacklist expands the concept to more than one provider.
Just because your personal training data is used in a personal context, it doesn't mean it cannot be used, statistically(99% of people marked this as spam, block it at the smtp level, we're wasting cpu cycles receiving this).
You should be using a filter, not the spam reporting feature for this... What people delete unread is not(yet) tracked. What's flagged has spam carries a black mark...
Microsoft can share, without using the GPL or the Apache license or any other "open source" license. They have, in the past, started many initiatives centered around source code. All of those were found inadequate, mostly because they all left Microsoft too much power, the developer of the code too little, and the end-user was IMHO an hostage. Now we see them picking one open source license(well two, they've been pro-BSD for some time), the least restrictive of them by their standards. They publicly try to smear the GPL, because the provisions of the GPL make such sharing mandatory. I liken this to in the real world, someone who gets told not to pee in the pool, and ingests a colouring, so his pee will not be blue, so he can say "well my pee ain't yellow, stop the other guy first". Microsoft, get with the program, what we want you is to stop treating software like it can be owned, so far, you seem unable to even think of not owning your software, so either just say you won't do it, or get sharing, but don't pretend, it'll only hurt in the long run.
What they are trying to do is to mount an offensive against Linux, through the GPL. The strategic idea behind this is the same as the Novell/Microsoft agreement: the only good software is per-seat licensed(paraphrase mine). My definition of good software is "I pay for software that helps me or my company, on my terms." The two are just not compatible, but I will hold to mine, because the alternative just lets Microsoft own my computer more than I do, through their size and agressive legalist practices.
When a company does it, it's "usually" not without your knowledge. (As in, you've agreed to it) You can also quit over it, but would you quit over it if they don't fire the cubicle mate that reads your email?
Seems to me that the RIAA's quote in the appendix is quite interesitng: when you fish with a net, you're gonna catch a few dolphins
Especially since you can see from the list of people they sued, that they have only sued dolphins(casual defenseless infringers), and not a single barracuda(large scale industrial pirates)...
The individual investor's nervousness(that something might happen to SJ) is caused by their speculation, and not knowing what plans there might be at Apple if something happens to him. I'd say due diligence would be contacting the board about what contingency plans they have in place, not messing with SJ. Worrying about his health is one thing, but they can't do much about it anyways, they just want to know, because, as long as he doesn't tell, they aren't sure they HAVE to think about the contingencies. Whereas the reality is they have to think and plan, for those contingencies nonetheless. Even if he is sick, that doesn't give them any advantage, unless he keels over tomorrow(if the disease has a really fixed timeframe). That this affects the stock is a consequence not of the perceived value of the stock, but the perceived lack of leadership at Apple, outside of SJ. Publishing the contingency plans(which are company documents and should be available to shareholders) is the only thing that makes sense.
but what I struggle to understand is why anyone is comparing them to one another.
Because there have been pressures on the OLPC to replace one with the other. To know how useful such pressures are, you have to compare them. That the pressures are lobby-driven and really have nothing in common with what people associate with "sense" is the result of that comparison.
I mean they coordinated this massive "patch" that's supposed to fix it. Now that it's fixed, it's not a secret anymore, or it this one of those cia secrecy where the reputation of those involved is at stake?
I'm running a 2.6 kernel(with sid) on a PII 350, with 384, but I wouldn't try with less, unless it was doing almost nothing... You need more room than that...
And ebay claims that they're authentic how? By claiming they're an auction house, they get responsible for the seller's description being fraudulent? Or is it that their paypal division(not involved in the auction, just the sale) didn't pay back fast enough the stinged buyer?
Or do you mean some other type of accountability? I mean, seriously, the only thing confusing is that eBay is an auction house, if you'd call them classified ads, you'd probably be closer to how involved they are in each transaction(but they'd compete with craigslist more). Or are you talking about paypal again(I only skimmed TFA and didn't see if maybe some other form of payment was used...)
They are doomed to fail. They could save a bunch of money on lawyers just renaming the "search" product they make, and reaping free publicity for the company by keeping the company name the same. That way, the company name, associated with all their other products get the free publicity from being a household name, but people can't use the name of their search engine in vain
Actually, that's a good point, why not fix the law. Make the tax break bound to a percentage of money spent in state businesses/jobs hired IN state? That's what the tax break is for isn't it, to encourage Nielsen to do business with Florida...
I'm not sure about ipv4, but I can imagine some people who had their own class A's would have loved having that many names to choose from.
Going back to naming schemes. Having both functional, AND theme-based, and even departmental names probably works better than any one system. Users remember what they can, they whine about the rest. Have them pick one choice, and tell them, the others are for your own use. (210names in one scheme and counting at place of employ, 40 people have to remember some of them, the network has to know about all of them.)
If only I had mod points. The only thing that makes sense is for Apple, to sell in-store, the unlocked model. AT&T selling it(and locking it) just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The phone is made under agreement to Apple. It should be supported by Apple(with full Apple care please) for use on any network. Period.
What it also tells us is that AT&T is hurting for publicity. Everyone knows it's an Apple iPhone, not an AT&T iPhone. I want AT&T to shut up about "iphones" they are providing GSM service, I want them to talk about gsm devices. What device I use on their network(provided it respects the GSM standard, is NONE of their business, and the public should not be letting them charge extra for certain devices.
Since Nafta, I doubt very many crimes at the state level that weren't also federal crimes were prosecuted vis-a-vis Mexico or Canada(and as a Canadian I hope I'd have heard about it...)
I do find it funny that the "pro-consumer" angle of this hasn't sprung up yet... Well pro-consumer vs Dilbert.
"You mean this convicted felon had access to my data, and nobody said anything until he had to get a PI license, totally unrelated to the work he was doing, but required by law? And once he did, he was convicted of 22 more counts of abusing other people's information, but you keep wanting to hire him why?"
"He works cheap, and we can't outsource to India, where they work cheaper."
It stopped being a "science" experiment when it became commercial, back in 1990 or so. Or else you could say, it became a hobbyist project instead of something driven by scientists...
I'm wondering though if that isn't an attempt to track revenue by smaller businesses operating solely on paypal and using their paypal balance solely not to report revenue. Those businesses would happen to be using paypal to pay for whatever expense they have, and never need to have money in the "bank" and hence the IRS would need to access paypal's records just to know how much they make in a year(outside of asking them).
They also allow them to put financial penalties(you lose your ticket in this case IIRC) on someone who knows their rights, and refuses to bow down to more security. It just targets the person who objects on the basis of conscience.
The DSLAM and ATM capacity is fine, but it's internal network to Bell, if they're overcomitted five to one on their one link to internap across the border, and three to one their intercanadian link to Torix, it's gonna get ugly.
The part about safekeeping in the summary threw me for a loop. I thought finally, that if you cannot back up your own music(as the Labels have said), you could pay someone to do it for you. Then it turns out it's something entirely different, a web2.0 of music. As for the question: "Would I rent a song for.." My answer is no, I pay for it, it's mine. Forever. The per song model works for radio because it's a broadcast, I'm not paying so I can broadcast a tune to my ears, and someone else gets paid, and the more I like a song, the more I pay.
It's a victory for ODF, but not a great one. A great one would have been ODF being made the default. Or better yet, a cheaper version with no docx support.
Then wouldn't need to advertise routes/ip space for their own customers... The very word advertise, in the context, means to third parties, as in BGP advertisement.
Slashdot Mirror
As an end user, Microsoft does not recognize you as an audience, unless you're also a reseller.
It's common practice for larger email providers to treat any large movements of personal training as indicative of the nature of an email(if a bunch of people tag it as spam for themselves, it must be spam for everyone, going into dns-blacklists, etc, even if a few people tag it ham). This is a single-provider example of what people do when they report spam to spamcop, except spamcop's blacklist expands the concept to more than one provider.
Just because your personal training data is used in a personal context, it doesn't mean it cannot be used, statistically(99% of people marked this as spam, block it at the smtp level, we're wasting cpu cycles receiving this).
You should be using a filter, not the spam reporting feature for this... What people delete unread is not(yet) tracked. What's flagged has spam carries a black mark...
Microsoft can share, without using the GPL or the Apache license or any other "open source" license. They have, in the past, started many initiatives centered around source code. All of those were found inadequate, mostly because they all left Microsoft too much power, the developer of the code too little, and the end-user was IMHO an hostage. Now we see them picking one open source license(well two, they've been pro-BSD for some time), the least restrictive of them by their standards. They publicly try to smear the GPL, because the provisions of the GPL make such sharing mandatory. I liken this to in the real world, someone who gets told not to pee in the pool, and ingests a colouring, so his pee will not be blue, so he can say "well my pee ain't yellow, stop the other guy first". Microsoft, get with the program, what we want you is to stop treating software like it can be owned, so far, you seem unable to even think of not owning your software, so either just say you won't do it, or get sharing, but don't pretend, it'll only hurt in the long run.
What they are trying to do is to mount an offensive against Linux, through the GPL. The strategic idea behind this is the same as the Novell/Microsoft agreement: the only good software is per-seat licensed(paraphrase mine). My definition of good software is "I pay for software that helps me or my company, on my terms." The two are just not compatible, but I will hold to mine, because the alternative just lets Microsoft own my computer more than I do, through their size and agressive legalist practices.
When a company does it, it's "usually" not without your knowledge. (As in, you've agreed to it) You can also quit over it, but would you quit over it if they don't fire the cubicle mate that reads your email?
Seems to me that the RIAA's quote in the appendix is quite interesitng:
when you fish with a net, you're gonna catch a few dolphins
Especially since you can see from the list of people they sued, that they have only sued dolphins(casual defenseless infringers), and not a single barracuda(large scale industrial pirates)...
for [1] The useful article summary just said "they started implementing it". So yes it's new, say a few weeks ago at most.
Hear hear about the truck.
The individual investor's nervousness(that something might happen to SJ) is caused by their speculation, and not knowing what plans there might be at Apple if something happens to him. I'd say due diligence would be contacting the board about what contingency plans they have in place, not messing with SJ. Worrying about his health is one thing, but they can't do much about it anyways, they just want to know, because, as long as he doesn't tell, they aren't sure they HAVE to think about the contingencies. Whereas the reality is they have to think and plan, for those contingencies nonetheless. Even if he is sick, that doesn't give them any advantage, unless he keels over tomorrow(if the disease has a really fixed timeframe). That this affects the stock is a consequence not of the perceived value of the stock, but the perceived lack of leadership at Apple, outside of SJ. Publishing the contingency plans(which are company documents and should be available to shareholders) is the only thing that makes sense.
Because there have been pressures on the OLPC to replace one with the other. To know how useful such pressures are, you have to compare them. That the pressures are lobby-driven and really have nothing in common with what people associate with "sense" is the result of that comparison.
I mean they coordinated this massive "patch" that's supposed to fix it. Now that it's fixed, it's not a secret anymore, or it this one of those cia secrecy where the reputation of those involved is at stake?
I'm running a 2.6 kernel(with sid) on a PII 350, with 384, but I wouldn't try with less, unless it was doing almost nothing... You need more room than that...
And ebay claims that they're authentic how?
By claiming they're an auction house, they get responsible for the seller's description being fraudulent? Or is it that their paypal division(not involved in the auction, just the sale) didn't pay back fast enough the stinged buyer?
Or do you mean some other type of accountability? I mean, seriously, the only thing confusing is that eBay is an auction house, if you'd call them classified ads, you'd probably be closer to how involved they are in each transaction(but they'd compete with craigslist more). Or are you talking about paypal again(I only skimmed TFA and didn't see if maybe some other form of payment was used...)
They are doomed to fail. They could save a bunch of money on lawyers just renaming the "search" product they make, and reaping free publicity for the company by keeping the company name the same. That way, the company name, associated with all their other products get the free publicity from being a household name, but people can't use the name of their search engine in vain
Actually, that's a good point, why not fix the law. Make the tax break bound to a percentage of money spent in state businesses/jobs hired IN state? That's what the tax break is for isn't it, to encourage Nielsen to do business with Florida...
I'm not sure about ipv4, but I can imagine some people who had their own class A's would have loved having that many names to choose from.
Going back to naming schemes. Having both functional, AND theme-based, and even departmental names probably works better than any one system. Users remember what they can, they whine about the rest. Have them pick one choice, and tell them, the others are for your own use. (210names in one scheme and counting at place of employ, 40 people have to remember some of them, the network has to know about all of them.)
If only I had mod points.
The only thing that makes sense is for Apple, to sell in-store, the unlocked model. AT&T selling it(and locking it) just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The phone is made under agreement to Apple. It should be supported by Apple(with full Apple care please) for use on any network. Period.
What it also tells us is that AT&T is hurting for publicity. Everyone knows it's an Apple iPhone, not an AT&T iPhone. I want AT&T to shut up about "iphones" they are providing GSM service, I want them to talk about gsm devices. What device I use on their network(provided it respects the GSM standard, is NONE of their business, and the public should not be letting them charge extra for certain devices.
Since Nafta, I doubt very many crimes at the state level that weren't also federal crimes were prosecuted vis-a-vis Mexico or Canada(and as a Canadian I hope I'd have heard about it...)
I do find it funny that the "pro-consumer" angle of this hasn't sprung up yet... Well pro-consumer vs Dilbert.
"You mean this convicted felon had access to my data, and nobody said anything until he had to get a PI license, totally unrelated to the work he was doing, but required by law? And once he did, he was convicted of 22 more counts of abusing other people's information, but you keep wanting to hire him why?"
"He works cheap, and we can't outsource to India, where they work cheaper."
It stopped being a "science" experiment when it became commercial, back in 1990 or so. Or else you could say, it became a hobbyist project instead of something driven by scientists...
I'm wondering though if that isn't an attempt to track revenue by smaller businesses operating solely on paypal and using their paypal balance solely not to report revenue. Those businesses would happen to be using paypal to pay for whatever expense they have, and never need to have money in the "bank" and hence the IRS would need to access paypal's records just to know how much they make in a year(outside of asking them).
They also allow them to put financial penalties(you lose your ticket in this case IIRC) on someone who knows their rights, and refuses to bow down to more security. It just targets the person who objects on the basis of conscience.
Forcing them to advertise the worse case scenario, as you describe, sounds like an attractative proposition in more than just this case.
How much of that capacity is their uplink?
The DSLAM and ATM capacity is fine, but it's internal network to Bell, if they're overcomitted five to one on their one link to internap across the border, and three to one their intercanadian link to Torix, it's gonna get ugly.
I sure wish coralcache would be a way around this, but apparently, they are slashdotting the site too, so few resources it has.
The part about safekeeping in the summary threw me for a loop. I thought finally, that if you cannot back up your own music(as the Labels have said), you could pay someone to do it for you. Then it turns out it's something entirely different, a web2.0 of music. As for the question: "Would I rent a song for.." My answer is no, I pay for it, it's mine. Forever. The per song model works for radio because it's a broadcast, I'm not paying so I can broadcast a tune to my ears, and someone else gets paid, and the more I like a song, the more I pay.
It's a victory for ODF, but not a great one. A great one would have been ODF being made the default. Or better yet, a cheaper version with no docx support.
Then wouldn't need to advertise routes/ip space for their own customers... The very word advertise, in the context, means to third parties, as in BGP advertisement.